[Evaluation of an indicator-based screening procedure for identifying quality problems in medical rehabilitation of the German statutory accident insurance].
In the context of medical rehabilitation quality assurance, the use of screening procedures aims at specifically screening for rehabilitative cases that might be affected by quality problems. These may then be subjected to more elaborate quality management procedures. In the study presented, a criteria-based screening checklist designed to tap potential quality problems among rehabilitative cases in the German statutory accident insurance medical rehabilitation system was evaluated regarding its validity and suitability for routine use. Checklists were filled out by accident insurance administrators in three regional insurance funds who were instructed to evaluate all current rehabilitation cases (n=189) with regard to potential quality problems. For validation of the instrument, case reviews by physicians familiar with medical and administrative features of the accident insurance rehabilitation system were used. About a fifth of all cases reviewed using the screening checklist (22%) were classified as potentially problematic in terms of quality. Absence of relevant documents, delays in document receipt, and complications during treatment were cited as the most frequent problems. Concordance between the screening checklist and physicians' ratings concerning the quality of rehabilitative cases was moderate. Sensitivity and specificity were insufficient when using physicians' ratings as a validation criterion (0.53 and 0.56, respectively). Accident insurance administrators rated the screening checklist as a useful and practical quality management instrument. Concerning its insufficient validity using physicians' ratings as a validation criterion, the suitability of the checklist as a screening instrument is questionable. The instrument's potential of introducing the accident insurance administrators' expertise and knowledge into medical rehabilitation quality management strategies is highlighted. Further research on methodological aspects of the instrument as well as its content features is warranted. Starting points for modifications are outlined.
Lukasczik
M
M
Universität Würzburg, Institut für Psychotherapie und Medizinische Psychologie, Arbeitsbereich Rehabilitationswissenschaften, Würzburg. matthias.lukasczik@uni-wuerzburg.de
Gerlich
C
C
Neuderth
S
S
Weber-Falkensammer
H
H
Vogel
H
H
D006233:Persons with Disabilities / Q000534:rehabilitation* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D005858:Germany / Q000453:epidemiology; D006801:Humans; D007346:Insurance, Accident / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000379:methods*; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires